First, let me say that I think peering regulation is a terrible idea.
No matter how cleverly you plan it, the result will be that fewer
small companies can participate. That's the character of regulation:
compliance creates more barriers to entry than it removes.
That having been said, jurisdic
On 06/11/2008 02:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who owns the DNS root?
The US Government claims to. However, asserting authority over the DNS
root is a different matter to a mere claim to ownership, and if the US
Government were to unilaterally decide on an action which directly acted
against
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:46:27 PST, Scott Weeks said:
> Are you saying that if any part of a network touches US soil it can be
> regulated by the US govt over the entirety of the network? For my part, this
> is not an attempt to change the subject or divert the argument (red herring).
> It is a val
Hi everyone,
The Mailing List Committee would like to remind everyone that postings
of a political nature are not considered operational. From the
acceptable use policy [1]:
6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are
prohibited.
Please refrain from follow up posts on
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Scott Weeks wrote:
> Ok, I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking of one company in a
> non-US country with some assets in the US (but most not) and being
> held to US regulations network-wide. How would you stop the traffic
>
Scott Weeks wrote:
> Ok, I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking of one company in a
> non-US country with some assets in the US (but most not) and being
> held to US regulations network-wide. How would you stop the traffic
> that was not following US regulations from hitting the US?
Ask ISPs
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"That's not how companies work. What you see as a single
company operating a single worldwide network, is actually
a web of companies with interlocking directorships and
share structures. In each country they will probably have
3 or 4 corporate entities."
Ok, I h
To add to Michael's point, I will say that while US Laws cannot apply
to a company globally, it is perfectly reasonable for the US govt to
say "If you wish to do business in this country, your operations
within the USA will follow these rules." This is how every other
industry is regulated. Just be
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 02:46:27PM -0800, Scott Weeks wrote:
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> That having been said, jurisdiction is a red herring. Every
> transit-free provider does at least some of its business in the United
> States. Economic reality compels them to continue to do so for the
> Are you saying that if any part of a network touches US soil
> it can be regulated by the US govt over the entirety of the
> network? For my part, this is not an attempt to change the
> subject or divert the argument (red herring). It is a valid
> question with operational impact.
That's n
ning event regulations (was: RE: Sending
vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
From: "Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05/11/2008 10:47 pm
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That having been said, jurisdiction is a red herring. Every
transit-free provider does at lea
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That having been said, jurisdiction is a red herring. Every
transit-free provider does at least some of its business in the United
States. Economic reality compels them to continue to do so for the
foreseeable future. That's all the hook the Feds need.
--
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Larry Sheldon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Lamar Owen wrote:
There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this
list) to limit the events: 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a
government run and regulated backbone);
>
> Which government
speaking about regulation, as a party providing an important piece of
infrastructure to the muggles in the matrix, we would expect some
gratitude from the various highly incompetent "governators" around the
world, instead of pissing off isps with more regulations, primarily pushed
by the various il
Government at last!
bzzzt! wrong answer. :-)
scott
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Larry Sheldon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
CC: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs
requesting. Was: Re: Sprint /
need to answer. Rhetorical question...
scott
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Charles Wyble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs
requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
Dat
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:59:09AM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
> You're very welcome. My previous career was as a broadcast chief operator.
> Knowing 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 73, 74, and 101 was part of that job (and a part I
> do not miss). Radio (both amateur and professional) used to be, prior to th
Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wote:
> Do you see that as more than a minor nuisance?
> I see it as a deal breaker.
Yet another reason I vastly prefer no such regulation.
Yet endusers with clout (such as NASA, who was on both sides of this latest
partitioning) may try to get some form of regu
Lamar Owen wrote:
Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How will that work in, say, China? Or Iran
[snip]
But I'm sure there are loopholes in my rough outline above; it's
too simple to be real regulation. :-)
One World Government at last!
Just one of the many loopholes in my simplistic
Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How will that work in, say, China? Or Iran
[snip]
> > But I'm sure there are loopholes in my rough outline above; it's too
> > simple to be real regulation. :-)
> One World Government at last!
Just one of the many loopholes in my simplistic outline, and t
Lamar Owen wrote:
Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this
list) to limit the events: 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a
government run and regulated backbone);
Which government?
Right. But what do we want th
Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this list) to
> > limit the events:
> > 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a government run and regulated
> > backbone);
> Right. But what do we want this to look like?
Wel
Lamar Owen wrote:
Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We know they can partition at any time.
We know that certain players have a history of causing this to happen
more then others.
What I haven't seen discussed in any great detail, is how to limit those
events.
There ar
Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We know they can partition at any time.
> We know that certain players have a history of causing this to happen
> more then others.
> What I haven't seen discussed in any great detail, is how to limit those
> events.
There are three ways that I know of (
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Saturday 01 November 2008 20:00:46 Matthew Petach wrote:
Unfortunately, as I'm sure you're all too aware, for public companies, it's
very hard to get away with saying "I was doing what was right for the
Internet, not what would make my business the most money" at a
shareh
On Saturday 01 November 2008 20:00:46 Matthew Petach wrote:
> Unfortunately, as I'm sure you're all too aware, for public companies, it's
> very hard to get away with saying "I was doing what was right for the
> Internet, not what would make my business the most money" at a
> shareholder meeting, o
At 06:54 PM 11/2/2008, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
> > Problem resolved?
>
>https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Since there is active litigation going on over this, it's also possible an
attorney said, "hmmm... maybe you should wait until th
* Paul Vixie:
> if cogent signed a trial peering contract which required payment if sprint
> determined after three months that cogent did not qualify, then the court's
> open questions are was the contract valid (and thus, does cogent owe sprint
> money) and why isn't there some kind of common ca
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:49 AM
> To: Daniel Senie
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
>
> Sprint's
> document's wording is careful even if t
Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 06:54 PM 11/2/2008, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>> https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
>
> ...
>
> Also in this document is a complaint that Cogent failed to disconnect.
> Excuse me? This was a trial PEERING agreement. That implies one or a
> series of point
On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 06:54 PM 11/2/2008, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
> Problem resolved?
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Reading this accounting of Sprint's side of the story reveals
something that's no
At 06:54 PM 11/2/2008, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
> Problem resolved?
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Reading this accounting of Sprint's side of the story reveals
something that's not too surprising about Sprint. They've got serious
note that i have friends at both sprint and cogent and i'm not taking sides.
"James Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would say it's a "peering spat", because Cogent's press releases stated
> Sprint failed to meet Sprint's "contractual obligation" to peer with them
> on a settlement-free basi
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But according to Sprint, this isn't a peering spat. This is a customer
> who didn't pay their bill.
>
> Probably useful to keep that in perspective.
> -M<
I would say it's a "peering spat", because Cogent's press releases
Patrick,
>Aren't you in one of the "1300 on-net locations" with Cogent? Doesn't
>that give you a free FE?
> :-)
Clearly you are joking here, but no, wasn't even offered the free FastE! :)
Randy
On Nov 2, 2008, at 7:06 PM, Randy Epstein wrote:
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Yes, I've read it. They need to fix their .
So while Cogent was depeered by Sprint, we contacted the CEO of
Cogent on
Friday to try and arrange at least a temporary peering arrangement
so that
bits flowed
> It just amazes me how some people seem to think this is the first time
> Cogent has done this. It's like they want the horrid operational impact
> it will have, cry that big bad provider X disconnected them, and people
> will come to their defense.
>
Everyone loves an underdog story.
-Justin
Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Seth Mattinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
[ snip ]
I guess, if you like being affected by Cogent's peering spats on a recurring
basis. Are you forgetting this is not the first time?
But according to Sprint, t
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Seth Mattinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brandon Galbraith wrote:
>>
[ snip ]
>
>
> I guess, if you like being affected by Cogent's peering spats on a recurring
> basis. Are you forgetting this is not the first time?
>
But according to Sprint, this isn't a peer
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
On 11/2/08, Daniel Roesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
Problem resolved?
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Best regards,
Daniel
Seeing as Cogent is going to try tooth and nail to keep their new found Tie
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Brandon Galbraith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seeing as Cogent is going to try tooth and nail to keep their new found Tier
> 1 status (and not pay anyone for transit), I would think this would bode
> worse for Sprint, since most of their transit customers could migr
On Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 06:05:52PM -0600, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
> Seeing as Cogent is going to try tooth and nail to keep their new found Tier
> 1 status (and not pay anyone for transit), I would think this would bode
> worse for Sprint, since most of their transit customers could migrate to
> Co
> https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Yes, I've read it. They need to fix their .
So while Cogent was depeered by Sprint, we contacted the CEO of Cogent on
Friday to try and arrange at least a temporary peering arrangement so that
bits flowed between our networks while they battled this situation
On 11/2/08, Daniel Roesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
> > Problem resolved?
>
> https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
>
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>
Seeing as Cogent is going to try tooth and nail to keep their new found Tier
1 status
> https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
no nda, eh?
randy
>
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
> > Problem resolved?
>
> https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
>
Check out the of the document. Me thinks it was a
rush job to post up the page and a bit of cut/paste was done. ;)
Tuc
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
> Problem resolved?
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Randy Epstein wrote:
> Problem resolved?
>From a single-homed Cogent site, I can get to sprint.net and fcc.gov, both
of which were unavailable after the de-peering.
Joe Johnson
Senior Systems Engineer
InnerWorkings, Inc.
Managed Print & Promotional Solutions
600 West Chicago Avenue, Suite 850
Real time look at the situation:
*>i4.23.112.0/2466.216.0.20 0100 0 1239 174 21889
i
* i 66.216.0.1 0100 0 1239 174 21889
i
* i 66.186.193.160100 0 1239 174 21889
i
* i 66.186.193.
ilmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:46 AM
>To: NANOG list
>Subject: Re: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent
>
>On Nov 1, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, bas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> I'v
MAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 10:07 PM
To: bas
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent
bas wrote:
> Why does everyone keep referring to traffic flows as sendng?
> In this case it's not as if Cogent just randomly se
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
I think it's a really odd reinterpretation of telephony concepts. In
telephony interconnects are typically settlement based, sender pays
receiver, in the settlement based world it seems to have gotten confused.
"in the settlement FREE world it seems to have go
bas wrote:
Why does everyone keep referring to traffic flows as sendng?
In this case it's not as if Cogent just randomly sends data to Sprint.
I think it's a really odd reinterpretation of telephony concepts. In
telephony interconnects are typically settlement based, sender pays
receiver
True... however this depeering may have created more of a mess for
Sprint's marketing and their customers than they predicted, which has
a negative impact on business and would not be fun to explain at a
board meeting.
I guess it's hard for sweater vests to understand that until it smacks
On 11/1/08, Barrett Lyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> In this case, it's very clear that customers are impacted and the Internet
> as a whole suffers, which is really unfortunate. The end result of a
> business decision has been to sacrifice the customer's needs, trust, and
> ability to commu
Patrick,
To further your point about the dynamics of peering:
Not to sound overly altruistic, but nowhere in there did I see, "it's
good for the Internet". If peering was less of a raw business
decision, the Internet would be a better place. In this case, if they
left it status quo and c
On Nov 1, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, bas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I've heard eyeball networks refer to traffic flows as sending too..
"You content hosters are sending us too much traffic, we want money
to
upgrade ports and transport all that traffic" Complete re
Once upon a time, bas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I've heard eyeball networks refer to traffic flows as sending too..
> "You content hosters are sending us too much traffic, we want money to
> upgrade ports and transport all that traffic" Complete reverse logic
> imho. It is always eyeball network
On Nov 1, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 01:20 PM 10/31/2008, Randy Epstein wrote:
If you haven't already seen it, the great Todd Underwood of Renesys
published an article today on his blog regarding this subject:
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/10/wrestling-with-the-zombie-spri.s
At 01:20 PM 10/31/2008, Randy Epstein wrote:
If you haven't already seen it, the great Todd Underwood of Renesys
published an article today on his blog regarding this subject:
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/10/wrestling-with-the-zombie-spri.shtml
Just read through Todd's blog posting. Since
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 6:20 AM, bas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > If Sprint is upset that Cogent is sending Sprint much more traffic than
> > Sprint is sending Cogent, how does Sprint sending Cogent even less
> tra
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Sprint is upset that Cogent is sending Sprint much more traffic than
> Sprint is sending Cogent, how does Sprint sending Cogent even less traffic
> (and making the ratio even worse) help Sprint? Why would Cogent ca
> So why do SPs keep depeering Cogent?
Karma.
brandon
Sent from my iPhone
On 31 okt 2008, at 19.05, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Maybe they can bring it up at the November 4th FCC open meeting :
[snip]
While I agree regulation is a possible outcome, I am always amaz
On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Maybe they can bring it up at the November 4th FCC open meeting :
[snip]
While I agree regulation is a possible outcome, I am always amazed at
the US gov't self-delusion that they can somehow regulate something
like the Internet.
End
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:20:23PM -0400, Randy Epstein wrote:
We hope Sprint and Cogent work out their differences, but in the
mean time,
we unfortunately will remain partitioned from Cogent.
Randy,
This brings up something
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:20:23PM -0400, Randy Epstein wrote:
> We hope Sprint and Cogent work out their differences, but in the mean time,
> we unfortunately will remain partitioned from Cogent.
Randy,
This brings up something I've always wondered. Why do we have
public depeeri
If you haven't already seen it, the great Todd Underwood of Renesys
published an article today on his blog regarding this subject:
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/10/wrestling-with-the-zombie-spri.shtml
An aside, WV Fiber (AS19151) is currently partitioned from Cogent since
AS19151 only contract
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Alex Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do I say stupid?
>
> Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is
> doing, this will
> certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we
> will have federa
On 31/10/2008 13:23, Joe Greco wrote:
It is certainly not "just" a bullying tactic. It may be "A" bullying
tactic, I won't even attempt to guess at the intent, but the tactic also
has the very real side effect of re-establishing full connectivity to
Sprint-connected sites that lose it.
you-re
I would have to agree with Alex that if behavior like this doesn't stop that
the Fed would get involved(regardless of which party is in office). Is this
type of behavior called 'peer pressure', maybe there are care groups to help
these victims. Overall... it is one thing if Sprint and Cogent g
On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Why do I say stupid?
Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what
Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by
legislators, and th
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Why do I say stupid?
Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what
Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by
legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally
regulate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Lewis) wrote:
> It seems to me, it's a rather empty offer though. How many Sprint
> customers affected by the Sprint/Cogent depeering are actually in
> facilities where they can get that free Cogent connection without paying
> for expensive backhaul to
eline; irritating if you're Sprint.
It seems to me, it's a rather empty offer though. How many Sprint
customers affected by the Sprint/Cogent depeering are actually in
facilities where they can get that free Cogent connection without paying
for expensive backhaul to reach Cogen
Larry Sheldon wrote:
I think you are wrong to the extent that BOP will be under the
Department Of Fairness.
OOps.
My bad.
Ministry of Fairness.
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Why do I say stupid?
Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what
Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by
legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally
regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see i
On Oct 31, 2008, at 7:47 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The most interesting part of the press release to me is:
In the over 1300 on-net locations worldwide where Cogent provides
service,
Cogent is offering every Sprint-Nextel wireline customer that is
unable to
connect to Cogent's customers a
> So why do SPs keep depeering Cogent? Serious question, why? I'm not
> aware of any Intercage-like issues with them. I've actually considered
> them as a potential upstream when we expand into a market they serve.
Because some SP's still have a sour taste in their mouth about what Cogent did
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
On 10/30/08, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
I wonder if judicious use of 6to4 and Teredo would allow an IPv6 (single
homed) user to access now missing parts of the Internet. Me thinks, yes
> > This wasn't the first time Cogent offered something similar. They did the
> > same thing when Level3 depeered them.
>
> And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying
> tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint.
It is certainly
AM
To: Nick Hilliard
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Sprint / Cogent
Nick Hilliard wrote:
> And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a
> bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if
> you're Sprint.
>
> Cogen
Nick Hilliard wrote:
And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a
bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if
you're Sprint.
Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts:
The loudest has the final say,
3 depeered them.
And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying
tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint.
Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts:
The loudest has the final say,
>The most interesting part of the press release to me is:
>In the over 1300 on-net locations worldwide where Cogent provides service,
>Cogent is offering every Sprint-Nextel wireline customer that is unable to
>connect to Cogent's customers a free 100 megabit per second connection to
>the Internet
On 10/30/08, Paul Fleming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/sprint-nextel-severs-its-internet-connection-to-cogent-communications,603138.shtml
>
>
The most interesting part of the press release to me is:
In the over 1300 on-net locations worldwide where Cogen
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/sprint-nextel-severs-its-internet-connection-to-cogent-communications,603138.shtml
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
On 10/30/08, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent a
On 10/30/08, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> I wonder if judicious use of 6to4 and Teredo would allow an IPv6 (single
>> homed) user to access now missing parts of the Internet. Me thinks, yes.
>>
>
>So would some "CGN" (Carr
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
I wonder if judicious use of 6to4 and Teredo would allow an IPv6
(single homed) user to access now missing parts of the Internet. Me
thinks, yes.
So would some "CGN" (Carrier Grade Nat anyone) too.
Last I knew Cogent wasn't d
I wonder if judicious use of 6to4 and Teredo would allow an IPv6 (single
homed) user to access now missing parts of the Internet. Me thinks, yes.
Deepak
Joe Greco wrote:
Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent are experiencing communications
difficulties in the DC (and probably other) areas. Theor
On 10/30/08, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>
> Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent are experiencing communications
>> difficulties in the DC (and probably other) areas. Theories include
>> a potential depeering.
>>
>
> Not a theory.
Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent are experiencing communications
difficulties in the DC (and probably other) areas. Theories include
a potential depeering.
I am seeing issues Cogent -> Sprint at Tyco Road, Tysons Corner VA.
..
... ..
show ip bgp 206.159.101.241
% Network not in t
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent are experiencing communications
difficulties in the DC (and probably other) areas. Theories include
a potential depeering.
I am seeing issues Cogent -> Sprint at Tyco Road, Tysons Corner VA.
arin_whois 206.159.
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent are experiencing communications
difficulties in the DC (and probably other) areas. Theories include
a potential depeering.
Not a theory.
--
TTFN,
patrick
Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent are experiencing communications
difficulties in the DC (and probably other) areas. Theories include
a potential depeering.
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me
FWIW, the Sprint routing issues we were seeing seem to have been
resolved now, AFAICS.
-roy
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 06:02:37AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> No apparent problems from Cogent in Northern Virginia :
Fine from Cogent in DC. Not so fine from Cogent in the Netherlands.
traceroute to ops1.scc.rnmd.net (208.91.188.136), 64 hops max, 40 byte
packets
1 38.105.91.2 (38.105.9
No apparent problems from Cogent in Northern Virginia :
tme$ traceroute ops1.scc.rnmd.net
traceroute to ops1.scc.rnmd.net (208.91.188.136), 64 hops max, 40 byte
packets
1 dmz-mct2 (63.105.122.1) 0.754 ms 0.278 ms 0.485 ms
2 gi0-7.na21.b002176-1.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (38.99.206.153)
I'm seeing issues with traceroutes dying at Sprint in London, too.
>From our site here in the UK (transit from NTL Telewest Business) I
can't reach cisco.com (but I know cisco.com is up - I can reach it
from elsewhere). Apparently customers of XS4ALL in the Netherlands
are seeing similar behavio
Hi,
We are seeing traffic getting dropped between our Cogent and Sprint
connect DC's. One of them is getting shutdown, so we just have a Cogent
link there :| Anyone seeing anything similar?
From: 91.102.40.18
traceroute to ops1.scc.rnmd.net (208.91.188.136), 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets
1 v1-
100 matches
Mail list logo
